Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, gave a recent interview to the French Catholic magazine Famille Chretienne. For many commentators and readers, the subject of the interview was his encouragement (again) for priest and people to face east, toward the orient—ad orientem in Latin—at certain parts of the Mass.

Whatever opinion you may have on the direction of liturgical prayer, this repeated call from Pope Francis’ Prefect is undeniably attention grabbing. But there’s a more central message to the interview that risks being overshadowed in light of the ad orientem discussion: our cooperation in the work of God.

To Famille Chretienne’s credit, its headline put it perfectly: “How to put God Back at the Center of the Liturgy.” Here, ultimately, lies the foundation and context of Cardinal Sarah’s remarks and the Church’s longstanding practice of ad orientem liturgical prayer.

The liturgy is about God. Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, to which the Cardinal makes constant reference in the interview, calls it “an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ” (n.7). Liturgically speaking, Jesus is the principal actor, the “prime minister.” The work done in any liturgical celebration (the Greek ergon, meaning “work,” is the root of “liturgy”) is his; we participants are his co-workers, co-operators, and co-laborers (collaborators).

But Jesus is both fully God and man. Does it not stand to reason that his work is also divine and human? Indeed, it is. In his interview, Cardinal Sarah voices concern that the human element of the liturgy may eclipse the divine dimension.

An imbalanced understanding between the divinity and humanity of Christ is not new. Fifth century Nestorians emphasized the humanity of Jesus to the detriment of his divinity, while at the same time Monophysites championed the divinity of Christ such that he lost his humanity.

The spirit of Nestorius and of the Monophysites still lives today. For his part, Cardinal Sarah sees today’s liturgy as particularly susceptible to the Nestorian influence of the mundane, rendering celebrations that are all too human: “The liturgy is the door to our union with God. If the Eucharistic celebrations are transformed into human self-celebrations, the peril is immense, because God disappears. One must begin by replacing God at the center of the liturgy. If man is at the center, the Church becomes a purely human society, a simple non-profit, like Pope Francis has said. If, on the contrary, God is at the heart of the liturgy, then the Church recovers its vigor and sap!” Similarly, he critiques in the interview (as he has done elsewhere) liturgies as entertainment, friendly meals, or fraternal moments.

The liturgy is the great reordering principle—of the cosmos, of history, and of us. Its content is the sacrificial work of Christ the Priest who factually and definitively returns—literally, re-turns—all things to the Father. This second Adam’s “Not my will, but thine be done” from the tree reverses the “Not thy will, but mine be done” of the first Adam at that first tree. He is the pontifex maximus—the “greatest bridge builder”—between exit (exitus) and return (reditus), bridging the gap between heaven and earth. To understand anything besides this fact is to miss the heart of the liturgy.

And here we come to a second main point of Cardinal Sarah’s interview. This great act of divine and human turning, of metanoia, of conversion, is so important because we the faithful are called to participate in it. Active participation, that “aim to be considered before all else” in the restoration and promotion of the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14), is participation in the reorienting action of Christ. “The orientation of the assembly toward the Lord” says Cardinal Sarah, “is a simple and concrete means to encourage a true participation for all at the liturgy. …It is to allow Christ to take us and associate us with his sacrifice…. The Eucharist makes us enter in the prayer of Jesus and in his sacrifice, because he alone knows how to adore in spirit and in truth.”

Cardinal Ratzinger explained the essence of active participation in The Spirit of the Liturgy: “If we want to discover the kind of doing that active participation involves, we need, first of all, to determine what this central actio is in which all the members of the community are supposed to participate” (Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), 171). The action, as discussed above, is Christ’s divine and human work of reorientation, of moving from self-centeredness to God-centeredness. The people in the pews give themselves, united to Christ the Head, as offerings to the Father precisely so that they, too, may experience the fruit of Christ’s self-offering: resurrection and glorification.

Now we can return (so to speak) to where we started and to what, for many, is the most noteworthy takeaway of the Cardinal’s interview. If the liturgy’s real substance is Jesus’ definitive return to the Father, and if the baptized are called (“commanded” might be the better word here) to join this saving work, then how might this internal and unseen reality be expressed and fostered externally? “To convert,” says Cardinal Sarah, that is, “to turn towards God” both spiritually and physically.

He is invoking in this brief but powerful assertion what many 20th century liturgical movement figures identified as the “sacramental principle.” The sacramental principle is, first of all, a very human principle. Composites of soul and body, men and women express and encounter internal realities via external and bodily signs. Happiness is signified by a smile; peace symbolized by a handshake; love conveyed by roses; forgiveness expressed by the words “I’m sorry.” (Indeed, words are so important that I could never make known my thoughts on Cardinal Sarah’s interview, nor could you ever know them, without my first signifying them in this text.) If they lack outward signs, unseen realities are almost un-real: the sensible expression actualizes (makes actual) insensible things.

Sacraments are a type of “efficacious sign” and, like signs, they express and foster unseen truths. How, for example, do the unseen realities of the Sacrament of Baptism—death to the old self, rebirth to a new life, and cleansing from sin’s impurity (among others)—become real? Through outward signs of water being poured as the Trinity is being invoked. When these outward signs are missing (e.g., baptism using ice or naming the Trinity as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier”), so is the inward reality these signs express missing.

When this principle is applied to interpreting Cardinal Sarah’s interview, we understand that our internal conversion is, in part, effected by our bodily conversion: “I am profoundly convinced that our bodies must participate in this conversion. The best way is certainly to celebrate — priests and faithful — turned together in the same direction: Toward the Lord who comes…. It’s to turn together toward the apse, which symbolizes the East, where the Cross of the risen Lord is enthroned. By this manner of celebrating, we experience, even in our bodies, the primacy of God and of adoration. We understand that the liturgy is first our participation at the perfect sacrifice of the Cross.” Specifically, “I [have] proposed that the priests and the faithful turn toward the East at least during the Penitential Rite, during the singing of the Gloria, during the Propers and during the Eucharistic Prayer.”

The liturgy’s reality is the work of a divine person who, in his human and divine natures, has turned creation back to God. His action is carried on today in his Church and is effected in the most powerful way in the liturgy. Liturgical participants, both clergy and lay, signify this return through outward and bodily signs.

Is the ad orientem posture at particular points in liturgical prayer a suitable sign for these spiritual realities?

A particular direction for liturgical prayer will not, in itself, signal greater or lesser participation. Participants at an ad orientem celebration can still be passive spectators, while those at celebrations versus populum can become truly engaged. Still, nearly 2000 years of practice, most of it coming long before Cardinal Sarah’s interview, indicates that a common direction is theologically sound, liturgically “right and just,” and pastorally effective.

For many, ad orientem signals a return to the days prior to Vatican II, good or bad, real or imagined; or a particular political ideology of the Church; or to a proper hermeneutic of reform; or a desired influence between old and new forms; or a rejection of the Council; or a type of Mediator Dei antiquarianism. These sentiments should not be quickly dismissed, for there may be elements of truth in each. Nevertheless, none of them reaches the heart of the matter.

If ad orientem posture, properly understood and prudently implemented, can facilitate our conversion and put God at the center of our lives, then why not return to its use? Such liturgical considerations lie at the heart of Cardinal Sarah’s argument.

The Holy Tradition is 2000 years old, the Catholic Church is a ‘Tradition’, and all faithful ought to be ‘traditionals.’ The proper source of Revelation is the world of God, which is both written and unwritten.
Council of Trent, Session IV it solemnly declared: “All revealed doctrine and discipline is also contained in the unwritten Traditions, which, having been received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or through the dictation of the Holy Ghost by the same Apostles, reached us as if they were handed to us”......”the same Traditions, which belong to the Faith and discipline, kept by a continued succession in the Church, we accept and venerate with a likewise affection and reverence.” AMEN!
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thess. 2:14. On a whole, we traditional Catholics believe that the heresies of modernism, secularism and progressivism, condemned by Pope Pius X, have caused all the problems in the holy Catholic Church. (Pascendi Domini Gregis’ by Saint Pius X, Sept. 8, 19907).

As far as Muslims, it suffice to say that they are justly demonized: + They blasphemously reject the Most Holy Trinity, The Crucifixion and Redemption. Objectively speaking, the one God that attacks the Trinity cannot merge with the God Who is One and Triune. AMEN!

Psalm 24: “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, to them that seek after his covenant and his testimonies…...The Lord is a firmament to them that fear him: and his covenant shall be made manifest to them.”

Let us pray, that All Catholics will be united….....” for the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, for the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the devotion of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for the love of the Church, for the love of the Pope, for the love of bishops, of priests, of all the faithful, for the salvation of the world, for the salvation of souls, keep this testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Mass of always!”
In Christo sacerdote et Maria,
Msgr. Lefebvre (during his sermon of Sept. 23rd, 1979).

May God bless All Soldiers of Christ!!!

Posted by Dunstan Harding on Tuesday, Jun, 7, 2016 5:20 PM (EST):

Let’ get rid of the mass rites altogether and with it the sacerdotal performance on stage, and return the eucharist to what it was from the outsed. A true banquet patterned after the Jewish Seder and the Graeco Roman symposion widely used in pagan and Jewish circles in the Ist century. From which Paul in Ist Corinthians takes as the model for his version of the eucharistic meal to be adoped by the 3rd century, but not universally used until then.

Paul’s version (interpolated by the synoptic gospel writers) only gradually came to replace the agape meals and various forms of Jewish table fellowship then in vogue which the Pauline rite only gradually supplanted. Some using the Words of Instituion and others never having employed them, e.g. East Syrian tradition).

Allow the diocesan bishop to shape the parameters of this banquet. Selecting the scriptural, litanies, collects, and psalmodic elements with the canon or eucharistic prayer to be said by any baptized Christian chosen by the bishop with the assistance of the pew dwelling laity. Thus ending the clericalized rites of the early middle ages which have no roots whatsoever in original Christian practice, and eliminating the need for a permanet professional priesthood altogether. The pastor’s charisms and multiple talents exercised by various members of the congregation.

Posted by Halina on Tuesday, Jun, 7, 2016 8:37 AM (EST):

Posted by Dan M. on Friday, Jun 3, 2016 3:37 PM (EDT): “Personally, I hope that we do not waste time, effort and resources on yet another meaningless change, when we should be focused on helping people.”
Pope Paul VI raised a cry of alarm, on 29th June 1972 (Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul), “The smoke of Satan has entered by some crack into the temple of God; doubt, uncertainty, problems, restlessness, dissatisfaction and confrontation have come to the surface….doubt has entered our consciences.”

We are witnessing the bitter fruits of the desecrated Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (the Tridentine Mass). The ‘sacrifice is offered to GOD, NOT TO THE CONGREGATION! The most Sacred and Holy Worship of God, demands reparation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist must be restored in the hearts of every Catholic, who wants to save his soul. St. Paul warns us…..’work out your salvation in fear and trembling’, being a ‘Catholic’ is NOT free ticket to Heaven…..we better believe it, lest we’ll perish! To make of the Mass a memorial or fraternal meal is the sixteenth century Protestant error. Luther understood very clearly that ‘the Mass is the heart and soul of the Church!!! He said: “Let us destroy the Mass and we shall destroy the Church”......Holy Martyrs and Saints, pray for us!!!
The Mass is NOT chosen in the same way that one chooses a political party…..Hopefully, you mean ‘the poor in spirit’, helping people to go to Heaven, to Love God, to Know God, to serve God (in His Truth). To save souls is the true mission of the Church. We are ‘our brothers keepers’ above all else.
Pope Paul VI in his speech at the end of the Council: “Profane and secular humanism has shown itself in its own terrible stature and has in a sense defied the Council. The religion of God made Man has come up against the religion of ‘man’ who makes himself God.”.....its fruit today…..“boundless sympathy for all men.” ABOVE GOD’S RIGHTS….AVE MARIA!

Posted by Peggy Trivilino on Sunday, Jun, 5, 2016 2:57 PM (EST):

As I understand it, “facing the east” at certain times during the Mass means both the priest and the people face towards the altar, because the church was built with the altar facing eastward. But surely not every Catholic church is built with the altar so situated. Indeed, the church in which I grew up has its altar facing west-southwest. In order for the congregation to face the east, they would have to turn their backs to the priest which isn’t very respectful.

Recently,I came across the term “liturgical east” which, by implication I suppose, doesn’t necessarily indicate geographical east. So, what exactly, does “facing the east” mean when referring to the positioning of both the priest and the laity during mass?

Just as an aside, I find it more than a bit ironic that the whole “facing the east” issue is most vigorously championed by traditionalist Catholic bloggers who see this orientation dictum as a rationale for reinstating a mandatory priest-facing-the-altar in all Catholic churches. These same individuals are frequently the quickest to demonize Muslims who do face due, geographical east five times a day when they pray. Definitely ironic.

Posted by Denis Nickle on Saturday, Jun, 4, 2016 9:04 PM (EST):

In all this argument, there are some assumptions that ought to be made explicit. Two that come to mind immediately are:

1. God can be “located”, i.e. found in a particular place – in this instance ‘ad orientem’, which means ‘away from the congregation’.

2. The place-where-God-is is NOT the place where the worshipping congregation is because, apparently, the celebrant can only turn toward God by turning away from the congregation.

So, in reality, the conversation is about a concept of God. On my understanding, Catholic theology has always struggled with the notion of a God who is at once transcendent (entirely other) and immanent (present everywhere and in everything). Our problem is that comprehending God is beyond human capability; and it is not resolved by facile squabbles about the optimal direction for prayer.

My difficulty with the ‘ad orientem’ model is that it seems to fly in the face of the clear teaching of the 2nd Vatican Council and St John’s Gospel.
The constitution on the Sacred Liturgy at par.7 speaks of Christ’s presence in the Church specifying, inter alia, “He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings” indicating the real presence (location?) of Christ in the gathered congregation.

And, of course, St John is also very clear: “I and the Father are one” (Jn.10:30). If He (Jesus) is there, so is the Father”.

Posted by James on Saturday, Jun, 4, 2016 6:00 PM (EST):

“But Jesus is both fully God and man…Cardinal Sarah voices concern that the human element of the liturgy may eclipse the divine dimension.” Well DUH! How many Catholics since Vatican II do you know who actually believe that Jesus is a Divine, and only a Divine Person, as Jesus Himself teaches us through the dogma of the Hypostatic Union? Jesus took on a human nature at the Incarnation, but Jesus Christ the Person is the Divine Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Posted by marc-laurent Côté on Saturday, Jun, 4, 2016 12:07 AM (EST):

to you

Sure, it is the most important question about the Celebration : let us give to God the Father His place, which is absolutely the first.
But the problem (not the question) is always the same: as long as the Eucharistic Prayer (concluded by «Our Father») has not the right place as «centre et sommet», in theory and in practice, the Celebration cannot be «orientated». It is not, firstly, a problem of external orientation, but of intern orientation. For example: ask the celebrants at whom they are speaking when they proclaim the «verba Domini». If they say : to Almighty God, there is no more problem for the orientation ! But, most of them will respond : «In persona Christi, I do speak to … » This problem is not new ! Many priests (or bishops), when they were celebrating «ad Orientem» (!!!), were not speaking to God the Father ! And when the «new» orientation was done, we have seen what we have seen. Return «ad Orientem» is only to look at the symptom (very real), but the problem is still and will always be there.
I try to write in a language which is not my mother tongue (mine is French … or Latin) and I am 75’s old, and was ordained in 1964. I am still teaching (since 1970) Theology and Practice of the Sacraments in universitary context, for God and for His people.
Marc-Laurent

Posted by Dan M. on Friday, Jun, 3, 2016 2:40 PM (EST):

“I will venture to say that not one bishop in the United States will order this to be done on a diocese-wide basis, despite that the Prefect for Divine Worship thinks it is critically important.”

I hope you are correct.

Posted by Dan M. on Friday, Jun, 3, 2016 2:37 PM (EST):

“Maybe people are not aware that Vatican II never mandated that the priest face the people during mass. In fact, the rubrics of the Novus Ordo assume that the priest is celebrating ad orientem - it tells him face the people at certain points, as if he’s not already doing so. And the Latin mass before Vatican II was sometimes celebrated facing the people.
It’s one of the things (along with the elimination of Latin and Gregorian chant) that people think were mandated by Vatican II but never were - in fact the opposite is true.”

You are correct. The VII document did not call for a change in orientation. The commission formed by Paul VI did and he sanctioned their work. As such, the argument that the VII document did not call for a change does not hold water. The document was not intended to call out every detail. Paul VI used his authority….

So, if we’re honest… we would be saying that I like the old orientation better and would prefer that we revert back to it.

Personally, I hope that we do not waste time, effort and resources on yet another meaningless change when we should be focused on helping people

Posted by Sam Schmitt on Thursday, Jun, 2, 2016 9:47 PM (EST):

Maybe people are not aware that Vatican II never mandated that the priest face the people during mass. In fact, the rubrics of the Novus Ordo assume that the priest is celebrating ad orientem - it tells him face the people at certain points, as if he’s not already doing so. And the Latin mass before Vatican II was sometimes celebrated facing the people.

It’s one of the things (along with the elimination of Latin and Gregorian chant) that people think were mandated by Vatican II but never were - in fact the opposite is true.

Posted by Sue Korlan on Thursday, Jun, 2, 2016 5:11 PM (EST):

If everyone went to the Latin Mass there’d be plenty of people coming in late, leaving early, and wearing shorts and flip flops, like they did at the Masses I attended in my youth when they were all in Latin. The reason you find the current Latin Mass crowd so fervent is that the average Catholic doesn’t go there.

Posted by johnnyc on Thursday, Jun, 2, 2016 3:01 PM (EST):

I attend the TLM so no problem for me but I’m sure liberals are going to have a hissy fit as we have seen in the comments. I used to attend the NO and the one thing that stood out to me as compared to the TLM was the number of people that showed up late and/or left right after communion at a NO. That just doesn’t happen at a TLM. Perhaps bringing a right ordering of the Mass will bring more respect for the Mass.

Posted by BigFeet on Thursday, Jun, 2, 2016 12:05 PM (EST):

In response to Laurence (on Wednesday, Jun 1, 2016 8:19 PM (EDT):)

He questions, “if the idea was to face toward Jerusalem but we want the Chinese to be turned that way, is that east or west?”

It is not a matter of facing Jerusalem, but facing the rising sun…. a metaphorical figure of the rising Son, the Son of God (Jesus) who rises from the dead. Also, it is a position of metaphorical leadership of the priest, acting in the person of Jesus during the Mass, to be at the head of the people, leading them in prayer on their journey to God, not merely around a table to eat a feast.

Posted by Pat on Thursday, Jun, 2, 2016 11:34 AM (EST):

The assault on the liturgy which took place after Vatican II caused much suffering and pain for many people (and even loss of faith for many people) - but, this was not considered relevant by the reformers, and the people dutifully accepted what was given to them, even when they didn’t like it. I don’t think that such a spirit of obedience and trust exists anymore. Catholic piety also has been destroyed. The church could not fix things now with a request, suggestion or command even if they wanted to (which is questionable) - The spirit of pride, independence, selfishness ... these are the fruits of the council and of the liturgical revolution.

Ms. Korlan, I would be interested in learning the sources of your knowledge on what the lay people did during Mass, during the Middle Ages. Also, while what you describe might have occurred here and there, your description fits my experience of what the laity do today, at Mass.

Posted by Dan in Indiana on Thursday, Jun, 2, 2016 6:49 AM (EST):

@sue korlan, Sad if that is what you ‘feel’, then you are truly mistaken on what the Priesthood and celebration of the Mass actually is. I would suggest reading AB Sheen’s ‘The Priest is not His Own’ to help you out of the darkness. In brief, the Priest is representing the sacrifice Christ offered to the Father in atonement for our sins, if that is causing you confusion, then you are denying Jesus Himself.

<i>Bob in Maryland- “How is [ad orientem Mass] supposed to work out in practice?”

It’s fairly simple: when the priest is addressing the Father or the Son, everyone faces in the same direction (“towards God.”) When the priest is addressing the people he turns to face them. At consecration, the Host and chalice are held high for everyone behind the priest to see.

Posted by Laurence on Wednesday, Jun, 1, 2016 7:19 PM (EST):

While I agree with having the priest face God with the people, “ad orientem” is no longer an accurate expression of this. So many churches are aligned differently than east-west. Also, if the idea was to face toward Jerusalem but we want the Chinese to be turned that way, is that east or west?

Posted by Sue Korlan on Wednesday, Jun, 1, 2016 3:39 PM (EST):

As a lay person, I experience the priest between me and the altar as separating me from God. And while it’s true that the Church celebrated Mass this way for a large part of its history, during a large part of that same time the laity received the Eucharist once a year, the Canon of the Mass was said in a way that prevented the people from hearing it, and the congregation only paid attention during the liturgy of the word and for a few minutes at the elevation. The Novus Ordo is a huge improvement over that.

Posted by Sue Korlan on Wednesday, Jun, 1, 2016 3:26 PM (EST):

As a lay person, when the priest gets between me and the altar I experience that as the priest separating me from God. I know that in the Middle Ages the laity hung out and chatted with each other, wandering around the church until the bell rang as the host was elevated. They worshipped a few minutes and then waited for the ceremony to end.

Posted by jody on Wednesday, Jun, 1, 2016 2:53 PM (EST):

The priest leads the people toward God as Cardinal Ratzinger said in his book “Spirit of the Liturgy” in battle array. Which was a great book to read.

God Bless Cardinal Sarah and i love his book “God or Nothing”.

Posted by Bob in Maryland on Wednesday, Jun, 1, 2016 2:25 PM (EST):

I don’t understand. How is this supposed to work out in practice? Is the priest to turn around during the Consecration, and then once again face the people afterwords? Am I missing something here?

Posted by Jacob on Wednesday, Jun, 1, 2016 10:22 AM (EST):

To achieve these same goals, without creating a fuss, a priest can simply be conscious that he has no need to be continually looking up at the people to somehow engage them in what he is doing. There is the book, the altar, and the Eucharistic species—there is no need to make a big deal about involving the people. If they are prayerful, that is all the involvement that is needed. Looking up to them is not going to help them to be more prayerful. It is a distraction for the priest too if he thinks too much about those who are present. The liturgy itself must be the focus of his consciousness.

Posted by BXVI on Wednesday, Jun, 1, 2016 9:56 AM (EST):

I will venture to say that not one bishop in the United States will order this to be done on a diocese-wide basis, despite that the Prefect for Divine Worship thinks it is critically important. It won’t happen unless it is ordered to happen. And unfortunately, that won’t happen, particularly under Pope Francis. Even if it were ordered to happen, it would be fiercely resisted. And that is too bad.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.